To deliver justice well, we need judges who have lived it too: In defence of the SC’s 3 year practice mandate for judicial exams

A RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT has barred fresh law graduates from judicial exams, mandating three years of practice, and has come at a time when India’s judicial system is under intense scrutiny for delays, inconsistencies, and backlogs, underscoring the urgent need for reform. Several solutions have been proposed, from digitisation and tribunalisation, to improving judicial efficiency. However, one foundational issue is often ignored: the importance of real courtroom experience for prospective judges.

It needs to be reemphasised that practical court experience in arguing cases and examining witnesses builds the competence for the well-rounded development of prospective judges. 

Most law students have a grasp of constitutional principles, landmark judgments, and statutory interpretation, which builds the foundation for students who wish to develop their careers in the judiciary. This theoretical knowledge, supplemented with courtroom experience, may enable future judges to understand how legal arguments play out in practice. 

To illustrate, there is a frequent misuse of adjournments in trial courts, wherein a judge who has practiced law may be able to analyse when a delay is being sought to frustrate the process rather than for a valid reason. Such insights can lead to faster disposal of cases. Moreover, judges with courtroom experience are more likely to understand the issues faced by those from underprivileged backgrounds who have waited months for bail or cannot afford to appeal a lower court’s verdict. In times when Indian courts are overburdened, this kind of personal insight is vital. 

At the same time, judges with prior litigation or trial experience are often better at managing dockets, enforcing discipline, and ensuring that cases move forward without unnecessary obstacles. Ultimately, the judiciary derives its authority from the Constitution and public trust. Citizens need to believe that the person deciding their fate understands what they are going through and is equipped to deliver fair outcomes.

Simply stated, a judge who has navigated the courtroom as a lawyer inspires more trust than one who has had limited or no exposure to the ground realities of legal practice. For litigants, particularly those with limited or little knowledge of legal intricacies, such experience becomes necessary to affirm credibility.

Surely, the three year practice mandate is not equitable

The existing judicial system does not always facilitate practical court experience, especially in cases of higher judicial appointments. A mandatory three-year practice requirement may also not be equitable in light of various structural and systemic barriers faced by women, first-generation law students, and students from marginalised backgrounds. Despite measures to ensure gender equality, women are underrepresented in the judiciary on account of various factors, not limited to discriminatory practices, gender bias in courtrooms, and other challenges relating to work-life balance. 

Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy  has noted that women lawyers continue to lack equal status despite being an essential component of the legal profession, further stating that “women lawyers still have to battle condescension, patronising attitude, and patriarchal mindsets from male lawyers and, in some cases, the Judges.”